Ableton Forum

Hey,

I've been told that when DJing using a CDJ controller or analog mixer with either CDs or USB ports to play off tracks and mix, then the kbps of all tracks used must be 320kbps. Is this true? If so, why?

I have a lot of tracks that are mp3s and are not 320kbps. Should I get them all converted? I hear opposing arguments for this as they claim that it will only increase the size of track, thus taking up more space and won't increase the sound quality of the track. Is this true?

Thank you.

MP3 is a lossy format. When the original audio is compressed to MP3, the compression removes inaudible frequencies and averages out others. You get a small file, but some of the original material is lost or aliased. The higher the bitrate, the more original material is kept, thus the better the quality.

If you have a 192 kbps MP3 and reencode to 320, you will actually lose quality. The algorithm will be run again, and some material will be lost.

For the standard club system, I personally think 160 kbps is the bare minimum for MP3s. It's at that bitrate that compression artifacts are audible if you are listening closely. You can play a set with tracks at multiple bitrates and nobody will hear it as long as the tracks are at least 160 kbps.

/facepalm

fuck me. another DJ asking if that sound he's pumping out into the dancefloor sounds like crap or not? you're getting paid by the club and fellow club goers are relying on YOU to have a good time.

play a low bit rate song at a gig and go out onto the floor and listen.

you have all the resources in your hands to figure this out and you're too lazy to think for yourself?

/tough love

Ha... Just FYI, you can't convert a lower bit rate file to a higher bit rate file and increase the quality. That's like...framing a painting but using a frame that is too large, leaving the rough edges visible. The bit crushing is unchanged, you just have a larger final file size.

320 kbps is good enough compared to wav, must conversion below that sounds bad and you can hear the difference right away in a good PA.

login wrote:must conversion below that sounds bad

Were they having a special offer on sweeping statements today?

It's also daft for anyone to say that you MUST use a certain bitrate when DJing!

Whether or not an MP3 sounds good depends on all sorts of things, including:

The quality of the original recording.

The quality of the kit you're playing it through, from computer or media player through to the speakers.

Finally, the quality of your ears. The older you are, the worse your hearing is likely to be - ergo the less likely you are to notice the difference.

102455 wrote:

login wrote:must conversion below that sounds bad

Were they having a special offer on sweeping statements today?

It's also daft for anyone to say that you MUST use a certain bitrate when DJing!

Whether or not an MP3 sounds good depends on all sorts of things, including:

The quality of the original recording.

The quality of the kit you're playing it through, from computer or media player through to the speakers.

Finally, the quality of your ears. The older you are, the worse your hearing is likely to be - ergo the less likely you are to notice the difference.

You forgot to mention how drunk/high the audience is and how much they are concentrating on the music and not the hot girl dancing a few feet away.

99% of djs compress da shits out of anyhting..

they just want it louder and louder and louder all through the night..
until at some point it all sounds just like a disgusting screaming "sausage of sound"(all rights reserved)...
and so all the problems of mp3 are being brought up due to the heavy limiting(compression)

(just came back from an awful party.. caused by djs..playing awful music through awful speakers )

102455 wrote:

login wrote:must conversion below that sounds bad

Were they having a special offer on sweeping statements today?

It's also daft for anyone to say that you MUST use a certain bitrate when DJing!

Whether or not an MP3 sounds good depends on all sorts of things, including:

The quality of the original recording.

The quality of the kit you're playing it through, from computer or media player through to the speakers.

Finally, the quality of your ears. The older you are, the worse your hearing is likely to be - ergo the less likely you are to notice the difference.

must doesnt mean 100%,

3dot... wrote:screaming sausage of sound

Coincidentally there's an interesting article in this months Screaming Sausage of Sound Magazine about lossy compression artifacts, transient smearing, noise floors and other thrills.


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/a ... lation.htm

Short version: everything is terrible.

Tone Deft wrote:/facepalm

fuck me. another DJ asking if that sound he's pumping out into the dancefloor sounds like crap or not? you're getting paid by the club and fellow club goers are relying on YOU to have a good time.

play a low bit rate song at a gig and go out onto the floor and listen.

you have all the resources in your hands to figure this out and you're too lazy to think for yourself?

/tough love

Acting like a pompous jerk won't get you anywhere in life. I'm fairly new to all of this and rely on the forums for polite and informative responses. Sorry for having rocked you pedestal.

Thanks to the rest of you guys for helping me out.

Angstrom wrote:

3dot... wrote:screaming sausage of sound

Coincidentally there's an interesting article in this months Screaming Sausage of Sound Magazine about lossy compression artifacts, transient smearing, noise floors and other thrills.


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/a ... lation.htm

Short version: everything is terrible.

...yep better not use mp3 if you don't really have too..

the guy dancing with his head in the speaker won't mind either way..

I dare anyone to do a double-blind-test with the same audio file as .wav and as a 320 mp3. You can't hear a difference, really.
(That is of course if the encoding was done properly and the source material doesn't sound like shit to begin with )

With the massive amount of disk space and internet bandwidth available these days, there is really no need for compressed audio formats any more - except maybe for streaming to mobile devices for a little while yet.

But if you have a really great track and the only version you have of it is a 128K MP3 you shouldn't be afraid to play it.

If you're doing your job right the last thing on peoples minds will be audio quality. They'll be to busy dancing and the place will be so busy that you're sound will be competing with the general hubbub of stomping feat, shouted conversations, bar noises, hysterical laughter, ...

The occasional geek who obsesses over the fine details of sound reproduction will be lucky to get past the bouncer's "not the right type of person" radar.

2be wrote:I dare anyone to do a double-blind-test with the same audio file as .wav and as a 320 mp3. You can't hear a difference, really.
(That is of course if the encoding was done properly and the source material doesn't sound like shit to begin with )

Feel free to try it out yourself. See if your intuition is correct.
Files provided
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/a ... smedia.htm

I'm not saying I give a shit, or that I have magic nerd ears, I'm just saying - there is actually a difference.